CAAB at Menwith Hill

25 July 2003

Lindis Percy has received this letter from Steve Barlow (Ministry of Defence Police Agency).

Dear Ms PERCY
Subject: CONDITIONAL BAIL
As you are aware, on Wednesday 16th July 2003 you were remanded on conditional bail by Harrogate Magistrates Court. The conditions of your bail are that you are "not to go within 15 metres of Menwith Hill boundary except on the first Saturday of each month between 1.45 and 3.15 pm for the purpose of attending a Quaker prayer meeting". These conditions, unless varied or withdrawn by the court, are in force until your next appearance before that court on Monday 18th August 2003.
I am taking this opportunity to inform you that the Ministry of Defence Police have measured 15 metres from the RAF Menwith Hill boundary at various locations around the station. These measurements have determined to us that the four public roads that are immediately adjacent to the four sides of the base fall within 15 metres. This is also the case for the majority of the grass verge that is directly opposite the Main Gate entrance. Please be advised that as stated in the actual wording of the bail conditions, our measurements have been taken from the boundary of the station.
Please be further advised that if, at any time, you drive or allow yourself to be carried as a passenger in a vehicle, or if you traverse the roads that are immediately adjacent to all four sides of RAF Menwith Hill by any other means, the Ministry of Defence Police will consider you to be in breach of your bail conditions. If you pursue such a course of action you will render yourself liable to arrest.
Please consider this information carefully when determining the necessity for yourself to be in close proximity of RAF Menwith Hill. My advice would be that you should stay well outside of 15 metres of the station boundary until such a time that the current legal proceedings against you have concluded.
Yours Sincerely
S S Barlow
Chief Inspector
D/Senior Police Officer

Lindis was present on Tuesday night at the weekly CAAB demonstation at Menwith Hill - having walked over fields to get to the Main entrance so avoiding being spuriously arrested again. The MDPA came out with their tape measure and measured what they said was 15 metres. Lindis stood on the grass verge opposite the Main entrance - in exactly the same place where the week before she was arrested but not detained. On that occasion the custody officer at Harrogate Police Station refused to accept her detention ....

CAAB will continue to work to uphold our human right to peacefully protest despite the extraordinary behaviour of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.

Friday - 25 April 2003

CAAB was at Fylingdales today to test the enforcement of the military land byelaws. When met by two Ministry of Defence Police officers Lindis Percy immediately said that she had committed and was committing an offence under the byelaws.

PC Daryl Jones immediately said that there were 'new guidelines' not to use the byelaws but to use s.68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 ('aggravated trespass') instead. Neither he nor his collegue were interested in any discussion about the byelaws.

Lindis was arrested for 'aggressive trespass' and taken to Scarborough Police Station (later it was gently brought to the attention of the officer that the alleged offence was in fact 'aggravated' not 'aggressive' 'trespass'). She was held for over 6 hours while an officer came from Catterick Garrison to interview her. She was later charged with:

"....having trespassed on land in the open air, namely Fylingdales Moor and in relation to a lawful activity, namely the security of MOD property in which persons were on that land did an act, namely caused security staff to be diverted from normal patrols which you intended to have the effect of disrupting that activity". Bail conditions were yet again imposed.

The arresting officer informed Lindis that the 'new guidelines' not to use the byelaws had been brought in the week before on the instructions of Lloyd Clark (Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency) and in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Custody Sergeant at Scarborough Police Station had also been informed of the new guidelines with the implication that there were to be no charges under the byelaws.

Military Land byelaws are the first legal protection round many of bases (USAF Lakenheath, USAF Mildenhall, NSA Menwith Hill, JAC Molesworth for example) There are signs all round the base at Fylingdales (and at other bases) which inform the public that the byelaws are in force.

Lindis in particular has worked for over 16 years to bring invalid byelaws to court. She has been arrested hundreds of times under the byelaws and not once have any cases been allowed to proceed to a trial. Others have been arrested too.

On Monday 28 April Lindis will appear at Harrogate Magistrates' Court (pre-trial review) when the CPS will apply for two cases under the Menwith Hill byelaws to be 'discontinued'.

She is in consultation with lawyers as to the legal route to pursue after yet again the CPS refusing to allow another byelaws case to come to court for trial.

Lindis has been arrested over a 150 times under the second set of byelaws at NSA Menwith Hill during which hundreds of hours of her liberty have been taken away. With this latest incident concerning military land byelaws the MDPA and the CPS continue to manipulate and abuse the legal process.

Photo by Lindis Percy

The MDP are no longer arresting Lindis under the byelaws after about 30 arrests and she has been allowed to walk freely on the piece of land not included in the permanent injunction area.

Anni was arrested on 24 May 2000 (International Women’s Day for Disarmament) for entering MHS through the Main Gate exit barrier in her wheelchair and declining to leave. She was again not charged but ‘reported with a view to prosecution’.

It now appears that the MDP will try and arrest and charge for anything they can ‘pluck out of the air’ rather than arrest and charge for open and admitted byelaws offences.

April 23rd 2000

We have walked on the land at NSA Menwith Hill many times since the last update. The MDP have continued to ignore Lindis and make no contact (sometimes they do not know we are there). Lindis has received more letters informing her that no further action will be taken. Anne Lee (womens group) received a letter dated 8 March 2000 from David Tucker (Senior Crown Prosecutor) saying:

"I am not willing to prosecute you for the purposes of providing a test case on the byelaws, but I am willing to explain my reasons for the decisions not to prosecute byelaw offences.
The decision whether to continue with any prosecution begun by the police or to advise whether a prosecution should be started has to be made by the Crown Prosecution Service, and in the case of prosecutions for alleged breach of the RAF Menwith Hill byelaws, I have made those decisions.
In coming to decisions on those cases, I have to act in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, and I believe that I have done so in each case.
The Code identifies two tests which any case must pass before a prosecution should be begun or continued. These are the evidential sufficiency test and the public interest test.
Evidential sufficiency means that there is a realistic prospect of obtaining a conviction on the evidence available. On the files which have been referred to me by the MoD Police, I have been satisfied of that. I proceed on the basis that the validity of the byelaws has been fully tested in the proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division in which the defendants had full opportunity to put their case, and did so through counsel.
The public interest test means that not every alleged criminal offence must be prosecuted. It means, as I understand it, that there is some benefit to the general public in terms of maintaining law and order.
I have considered individually the facts of each case referred to me. The fact that I have come to the same conclusion in each case reflects the similarity of the cases.
Factors which I have taken into account are generally these:

that the incident is a minor one, deliberately brought about by the defendant as part of a non-violent campaign of civil disobedience
that the alleged criminal behaviour has caused only nuisance
that prosecuting the defendant is unlikely to stop future offending".

Yours faithfully

signed David Tucker
Senior Crown Prosecutor

Several questions arise from David Tucker's inadequate explanation.

What is the purpose of the byelaws?
There are two people with convictions under the 1996 'RAF Menwith Hill' byelaws: Lindis Percy and another. It was 'in the public interest' then and clearly was not of a 'minor one'.
David Tucker is being disingenuous with the truth.
Lindis Percy and Anni Rainbow were all set to challenge the byelaws in 1997 (subsequently taken on by Anne Lee and Helen John) and have new arguements to advance since the second challenge to the validity of the byelaws at Menwith Hill.
It is in 'the public interest' to challenge unsafe law.
We are in the process of seeking legal advice concerning the most appropriate legal route for a challenge.

On Tuesday 14 March 2000 Lindis Percy again walked freely on the land occupied by the Americans at Menwith Hill for over half an hour. The Ministry of Defence Police knew she was there and took no action despite knowing that she was clearly in breach of the byelaws.

It seems that the Ministry of Defence Police have at last given up after years of arrest, detention, abuse and institutionalised manipulation of the law, violence and bullying - all done with no intention to ever charge and bring these cases to court. The objective to walk the land freely and without fear and harrassment by the MDP has therefore been achieved. So do please think about coming to walk the Dales too................

4 March 2000 - After the demonstration Lindis walked within the 'applicable area' of the byelaws and was left unmolested by the MDP. She again removed a byelaws sign having (as always) informed the MDP that she had done so adding that she had no intention to keep it and it would be returned once the MDP upheld and enforced the law at MHS.

In a letter dated 29 February 2000 from F R Williams-Brown (Inspector D/Senior Police Officer) Lindis was informed that 'after consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, it is not intended to pursue these prosecutions. Subsequently, no further action will be taken with regard to these cases'.

5.1.00 RAF Menwith Hill byelaws section 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b)
8.1.00 Escaping from lawful custody
18.1.00 Attempted theft of a byelaws notice (Lindis had informed the MDP that she had no intention to keep the sign - see above)
18.1.00 RAF Menwith Hill byelaws (sections as above)
1.2.00 RAF Menwith Hill byelaws 4 (2)(b)
1.2.00 RAF Menwith Hill byelaws section 4(2)(a) and 4(2)(b)

Lindis would be very happy to escort anyone who would like a walk on the base.

Photo by Craig Stennett

The Ministry of Defence Police continue to 'play' with the law (byelaws):

An official letter written on 24 February 2000 by R Clancy (MDP Secretariat) on behalf of Graeme Drummond (Chief Inspector MDP NSA Menwith Hill) to Lindis Percy states:

"If, however, a member of the public not familiar with Menwith Hill were to inadvertently enter land covered by the byelaws [RAF Menwith Hill byelaws] they would simply be asked to leave the area by the MOD Police and no further action would be taken, providing of course that the individual concerned left the area immediately".

Lindis walked for over an hour on land within the 'applicable' area of the military land byelaws at Menwith Hill on 22, 23 and 28 February 2000 . No action taken by the MDP.

20 February 2000 - Twice Lindis entered the 'applicable area' of the byelaws to photograph the positioning of the byelaws notices and the SBIRS radomes. Both times she was observed from a distance by the MDP in a patrol vehicle who stayed their distance and took no action.

16 February 2000 - Walking on the base Lindis was arrested under the byelaws by PC Peel assisted by PC Devlin and Crawford. There were no witnesses apart from these officers. The level of violence, abuse and bullying by PC Devlin and Crawford (in particular) to Lindis was increased and their behaviour was a matter of deep concern. Sergeant Ranson (custody officer) informed Lindis that there was enough evidence to detain and charge her. However Sergeant Ranson again reported her with a view to prosecution. Her camera was taken but this time the MDP were very careful to abide by the rules of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

9 February 2000 - Lindis was arrested under the 'RAF Menwith Hill' byelaws by PC Green while walking on the base to document and photograph the positioning of the byelaws notices and the building of the two SBIRS radomes. Acting Sergeant PC Bramley was the custody officer. 'Lindis was informed by PC Bramley that she would be reported with a view to prosecution as the offence was a 'minor offence'. While being arrested her camera was taken away and was not recorded on the custody record as seized property. No 'seized property' form was written out and when given back the film was missing. An investigating officer is to be appointed after Lindis requested that the film be returned and for an explanation as to why procedures were not followed A Ministry of Defence Police Inspector will investigate his own force.

Friday 4 February 2000 - walking on the land at Menwith Hill Lindis was ignored by the MDP patrol inside the base who took no action.

On Tuesday 1 February 2000 Lindis was at Menwith Hill to document the building of the SBIRS radomes and to do some research. She was arrested under the RAF Menwith Hill byelaws by PC Heron, taken into custody in front of Sergeant David Ranson and immediately dearrested. The reason given to Lindis was that it was a 'minor offence'.

Lindis continued her research and was arrested by PC Peel and taken into custody. The custody officer was again Sergeant Ranson who twice informed her that 'there was enough evidence to charge her'. She spoke to the duty solicitor who informed her that the custody officer told him that Lindis was to be released. She asked the duty solicitor to question the custody officer about this as he had definitely told her that she was to be charged under the byelaws (heard and witnessed by PC Peel). Lindis again spoke to the solicitor who said that Sergeant Ranson had told him that Lindis was to be charged after all. A short time later Lindis was informed that she would be 'reported with a view to prosecution' and released.

What happened on 1 February 2000 is just another example of how they are behaving and how it is again clear that someone unnamed and unidentified is giving instructions to the MDP not to charge so that a challenge to the byelaws is prevented. The MDP and the CPS have no intention to bring any of these incidents to court. Lindis has received notice from the MDP that they are taking no action on several more of these incidents. Hours of Lindis's liberty since September last year have been taken away.

(See also MoD Police abusing the law at Menwith Hill - 7/11/99)

Back to the CAAB Home Page